Skip to main content
Log in

Complexities of Particulate Matter Measurement in Parenteral Formulations of Small-Molecule Amphiphilic Drugs

  • Research Article
  • Theme: Sterile Products: Advances and Challenges in Formulation, Manufacturing, Devices and Regulatory Aspects
  • Published:
AAPS PharmSciTech Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reconstituted parenteral solutions of three surface-active anti-infective small-molecule drugs and solutions of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS, a model surfactant) were studied to quantify the impact of sample preparation and handling on particle counts. Turbidimetry and light obscuration profiles were recorded as a function of agitation and shearing with and without the introduction of foam into the solutions. SDS solutions at concentrations above the critical micelle concentration (CMC) show significantly greater sensitivity to shear and foam presence than SDS solution below the CMC: Values of >10 μm particles increased 8 fold over control (an unsheared sample) in the micellar solution vs. 4 fold particle count increase over control at a sub-micellar concentration. An even more significant increase in the ratio of particle count in sheared/unsheared solution is seen for >25 μm unit counts, due to the increased interference of foam with the measurement. Two commercial products, injection formulations of teicoplanin and cefotaxime sodium, as well as an investigational compound 1, showed an increase in scattering as a function of foam production. The impact of foaming was significant, resulting in an increase of turbidity and light obscuration measurements in all solutions. The results illustrate some of the challenges that are inherent to optically clear, homogeneous pharmaceutical injections containing compounds which have a tendency toward self-association and surfactant-like behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Excerpt taken from the USP: http://www.usp.org/USPNF/notices/erratum788.html

  2. For product label see: http://www.sanofiaventis.com.au/products/aus_pi_targocid.pdf

References

  1. Barber TA. Control of particulate matter contamination in healthcare manufacturing. 1st ed. Englewood: Interpharm Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Akers MK, Larrimore D, Guazzo D. Parenteral quality control: sterility, pyrogen, particulate, and package integrity testing. 3rd ed. New York: Informa HealthCare; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Taboada P, Ruso JM, Garcia M, Mosquera V. Surface properties of some amphiphilic antidepressant drugs. Colloids Surf, A Physicochem Eng Asp. 2001;179:125–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schreier S, Malheiros SV, de Paula E. Surface active drugs: self-association and interaction with membranes and surfactants. Physical and biological aspects. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2000;1508:210–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Attwood D, Mosquera V, Novas L, Sarmiento F. Micellization in binary mixtures of amphiphilic drugs. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1996;179:478–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Floyd AG. Top ten considerations in the development of parenteral emulsions. Pharm Sci Technol Today. 1999;4:134–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Prankerd RJ, Stella VJ. The use of oil-in-water emulsions as a vehicle for parenteral drug administration. J Parenter Sci Technol. 1990;44:139–49.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sharma DK, King D, Moore P, Oma P, Thomas D. Flow microscopy for particulate analysis in parenteral and pharmaceutical fluids. Eu J Parenter Pharm Sci. 2007;12(4):97–101.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Narhi LO, Jiang Y, Cao S, Benedek K, Shnek D. A critical review of analytical methods for subvisible and visible particles. Cur Pharm Biotech. 2009;10:373–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Huang C, Sharma D, Oma P, Krishnamurthy R. Quantitation of protein particles in parenteral solutions using micro-flow imaging. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98:3058–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Murray BS, Dickinson E, Lau CK, Nelson PV, Schmidt E. Coalescence of protein-stabilized bubbles undergoing expansion at a simultaneously expanding planar air-water interface. Langmuir. 2005;21:4622–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ettelaie R, Dickinson E, Du Z, Murray BS. Disproportionation of clustered protein-stabilized bubbles at planar air–water interfaces. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2003;263:47–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Subramaniam AB, Abkarian M, Mahadevan L, Stone HA. Non-spherical bubbles. Nature. 2005;438:930.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Du Z, Bilbao-Montoya MP, Binks BP, Dickinson E, Ettelaie R, Murray BS. Outstanding stability of particle-stabilized bubbles. Langmuir. 2003;19:3106–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Subramaniam AB, Mejean C, Abkarian M, Stone HA. Microstructure, morphology, and lifetime of armored bubbles exposed to surfactants. Langmuir. 2006;22:5986–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hanwright J, Zhou J, Evans GM, Galvin KP. Influence of surfactant on gas bubble stability. Langmuir. 2005;21:4912–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fuguet E, Ràfols C, Rosés M, Bosch E. Critical micelle concentration of surfactants in aqueous buffered and unbuffered systems. Anal Chim Acta. 2005;548:95–100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Williams RJ, Phillips JN, Mysels KJ. Critical micelle concentration of sodium dodecyl sulfate at 25 C. Trans Faraday Soc. 1955;51:728–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mrestabi Y, Neubert RH, Rüttinger HH. Characterization of interaction between cephalosporins and charged surfactants using capillary zone electrophoresis. J Chromatogr A. 1998;802:89–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gasper MP, Berthod A, Nair UB, Amstrong DW. Comparison and modeling study of vancomycin, ristocetin A, teicoplanin for CE enantioseparations. Anal Chem. 1996;68:2501–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pallas NR, Harrison Y. Colloids Surf. 1990;43:169–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magali B. Hickey.

Additional information

Guest Editors: Lavinia Lewis, Jim Agalloco, Bill Lambert, Russell Madsen, and Mark Staples

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hickey, M.B., Waggener, S., Gole, D. et al. Complexities of Particulate Matter Measurement in Parenteral Formulations of Small-Molecule Amphiphilic Drugs. AAPS PharmSciTech 12, 248–254 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-010-9574-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-010-9574-x

KEY WORDS

Navigation